RAM SEWAK Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Siya Ram Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Sec. 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated in respect to the plot No. 786 situated at Village Tindwara, Tahsil and District Banda. Tahsildar vide order dtd. 27/2/2023 passed the order for ejectment in respect to the plot No. 786 against the petitioner as well as imposed damages of Rs.2,43,000.00 against the petitioner. Against the order of Tahsildar dtd. 27/2/2023, appeal under Sec. 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Collector / respondent No. 2 which was dismissed vide order dtd. 23/8/2024, hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioner in arbitrary and exparte manner. He further submitted that the damages has been imposed in arbitrary manner without considering the provisions contained under Rule 67 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. He further submitted that in view of the ground taken in appeal with regard to the possession over the plot No. 786, the authorities have not conducted the survey / demarcation of the plot in question, as such, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2023 (160) RD 204 (Alld.) in support of his argument. He further placed the revenue entry of the plot in question in order to demonstrate that the petitioner is not in illegal possession of plot No. 786.